The Evolution of Naval ArmamentRobertson, Frederick Leslie
History
The Evolution of Naval Armament
Robertson, Frederick Leslie
Naval art and science -- History; Ordnance, Naval -- History; Warships -- History
can blow, witness our small Milbrook men of Cornwall, that ride it out
at anchor, half seas over between England and Ireland, all the winter
quarter.... For true it is, that the length of the cable is the life of
the ship in all extremities. We carry our ordnance better than we were
wont, because our nether overloops are raised commonly from the water,
to wit, between the lower part of the port and the sea. We have also
raised our second decks and given more vent thereby to our ordnance,
tying on our nether overloop. We have added cross pillars in our royal
ships to strengthen them, which be fastened from the kelson to the
beams of the second deck. We have given longer floors to our ships than
in elder times, and better bearing under water, whereby they never fall
into the sea after the head and shake the whole body, nor sink stern,
nor stoop upon a wind, by which the breaking loose of our ordnance or
the not use of them, with many other discommodities are avoided....
And to say the truth a miserable shame and dishonour it were for our
shipwrights, if they did not exceed all other in the setting up of our
royal ships, the errors of other nations being far more excusable than
ours.” Sir Walter was inaccurate in attributing all the improvements
enumerated to his own generation; bonnets, for instance, were in use
long before his day. Nevertheless his paper constitutes one of the most
important contributions to the history of naval architecture in this
country.
In the early years of the century, too, evidence as to the shortcomings
of contemporary naval construction was furnished by a fierce critic,
Captain Waymouth. He proclaimed that English shipwrights built only
by uncertain traditional precepts and observations; that none of them
could build two ships alike or predict with accuracy their draught
of water; that all their ships were crank, leewardly--“a great
disadvantage in a fight”--difficult to steer and sail, too deep in
the water, of less capacity than the Hollanders, and so badly built
and designed as frequently to require “furring,” or reinforcing by
extra planking. He advocated building ships longer, broader, with
longer floors so as to reduce their draught, and snugger in respect of
upper works. And though he failed on trial to translate his ideas into
successful performance, his criticisms are accepted by historians as
being probably well-founded.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account